Mc Mahan responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that that: (1) the Engagement Letter contained a forum selection clause requiring the action to be commenced and litigated in Connecticut state court; (2) Charys failed to plead sufficient facts to establish its claims; and (3) Charys’s admission that the Transfers were made on account of an antecedent debt proved that the Transfers were in exchange for reasonably equivalent value.The Trusts filed a response and an amended complaint.At the time of the contract, the Debtors were incorporated in California; three years after entering into the contract, the Debtors changed their state of incorporation to Delaware.In this case, the Plaintiff argues that there is a sufficiently close nexus between this adversary proceeding and the bankruptcy case because (1) the claims arose pre-confirmation, (2) the claims were incorporated into the Plan, which reserved jurisdiction over them, (3) the proceeds of the claims, if any, will benefit the estate's creditors, (4) the adversary proceeding was commenced shortly after the Plan's effective date, (5) this is a liquidating case rather than a reorganization, and (6) federal policy and consistency is fostered by having all actions in one central court.For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it has no subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted post-confirmation by the Plaintiff because they are not sufficiently "related to" the bankruptcy case.BWI designed, built and implemented systems for the treatment of contaminated groundwater, industrial process water, and air streams from municipal and industrial 525 (noting that "[t]he jurisdictional statutes apply without differentiating between liquidating and reorganizing debtors").Under the WSA, the Debtors were responsible for designing and installing facilities for the treatment of groundwater from the Well that met water quality standards.

1983); In re Cartridge Television, Inc., 535 F.2d 1388, 1390 (2d Cir.1976).

City of Rialto, a California Municipal Corporation and Rialto Utility Authority, a California Joint Powers Authority, Defendants.

For the reasons set forth below, the Motion will be granted, in part, and the adversary will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court agrees with the Plaintiff that the success of this adversary proceeding would promote the efficient distribution of trust assets to creditors.

On the following day, the Debtors filed a motion for approval of a sale of substantially all their assets.

Leave a Reply